It was 31/7/03 4:02 pm, when Bob Smith wrote:
> Kodak has typically processed their images from all of
> their cameras very conservatively. They err on the flat, low cantrast
> side to insure not losing saturated detail in any channel. The result
> is an image that looks a bit dull compared to those straight out of
> other cameras, but one which can stand up very well to heavy post
> processing to achieve exactly what you want.
Bob
When I was shooting film for telecine, we always tried to produce a fairly
flat neg so that the TK op had more leeway to produce more "looks" from the
neg, without having his hands tied behind his back.
Kodak actually produced a neg specifically for TK and, like the launch of
the 14n, was mishandled and then discontinued (it actually behaved contrary
to how people expected traditional film to behave so had a lot of negative
feedback). Hopefully, the 14n won't disappear the same way.
One reason the 14n may produce more noise is because more levels are
allocated to the midtones and the highlights than in the other cameras which
seem to assign the majority of the levels to the "toe" and progressively
less as you climb towards the "shoulder." Is that a fair assumption?
Spreading the levels evenly seems the way to go (a bit like neg but we know
it can never be the same as one is analogue and the other digital - unless
you employ very expensive algorithms to mimic the look of film, of course),
as long as you then have the right software to give you the "looks"
automatically by assigning them or by you flying in manual mode.
--/ Shangara Singh
:: Adobe Certified Expert ~ Photoshop 7.0
:: Adobe Photoshop 7.0 Essential Tips
:: Exam Aids for Photoshop, Illustrator & Dreamweaver
:: Http://www.shangarasingh.com
===============================================================
GO TO http://www.prodig.org for ~ GUIDELINES ~ un/SUBSCRIBING ~ ITEMS for SALE
